In re Donald B.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1 CA-JV 12-0289 |
| Parties | IN RE DONALD B., JR. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
(Not for Publication -
Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender
By Diane S. McCoy, Deputy Appellate Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Kingman
Matthew J. Smith, Mohave County Attorney
By Melissa M. Moore, Deputy County Attorney
Attorneys for Appellee
Kingman
¶1 Donald B., Jr. (Juvenile) appeals his adjudication ofdelinquency on one count of burglary in the third degree and one count of criminal damage. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 On March 11, 2011, the owner (Owner) of Meadview Hardware Store (Store) arrived at the Store around 5:00 a.m. Owner noticed significant damage to his property stored in a fenced lumber yard (Yard) across the street from the Store. His truck was damaged, including broken windows, broken lights, melted carpet on the passenger side floorboard from a fire, and water damage from a hose that was placed inside the truck and left running. Upon further investigation, Owner noted that there was other property damage in the Yard: two forklifts' gas tanks had been filled with water, most of the bagged goods had been sliced with a knife, a water heater and swamp cooler had been damaged, and tools were missing from inside the damaged truck. Owner estimated that the total damage was approximately $8000-$9000.
¶3 A deputy sheriff with the Mohave County Sheriff Department (Deputy), was dispatched to the Yard to investigate the criminal damage and burglary. At trial, Deputy testified that he located shoe tracks at the scene and photographed them for evidence. He also indicated that there were drag marks around the area of the Yard where it appeared the perpetrators had crawled underneath a fence to gain access. Deputy statedthat the shoe tracks led away from the Yard and stopped in front of a residential address on Sandy Point Road. The address did not belong to Juvenile, but it did belong to D.M., one of the other two juveniles involved. Deputy testified that at the scene, he was informed by a Yard customer that two individuals were playing on Sandy Point Road whose shoe prints appeared to match those left at the scene.
¶4 Deputy located two juveniles playing on Sandy Point Road. He testified they identified themselves as Juvenile and T.L. Deputy asked Juvenile and T.L. if they knew anything about the damage done in the Yard and both stated "no." He also testified that he asked to see the juveniles' shoes, and they complied with his request. Deputy noted that Juvenile's shoe prints matched those prints found inside and outside the Yard. T.L. admitted that he and Juvenile had walked around both inside and outside the Yard.
¶5 Deputy drove Juvenile and T.L. home, free of handcuffs, in his patrol car. While speaking with Juvenile's mother (Mother), Deputy learned that Juvenile had spent the night at T.L.'s house the night before and Juvenile admitted that he "had been inside the Yard but [D.M.] had done of [sic] the damage, [and] that he did just a little bit of it." However, at trial, both Mother and Juvenile testified that Juvenile never admitted to Deputy that he committed any of thedamage.
¶6 A delinquency petition was filed against Juvenile alleging four counts: burglary in the third degree, a class four felony; criminal damage, a class four felony1; arson of a structure, a class four felony; and theft, a class six felony. A contested adjudication hearing was held, and the juvenile court acquitted Juvenile on the arson and theft charges but adjudicated him delinquent on one count of burglary in the third degree and one count of criminal damage. The court placed Juvenile on standard probation for one year and ordered him to pay $8847.72 in restitution.
¶7 Juvenile timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 8-235 (2007) and 12-120.21.A.1 (2003).
¶8 Juvenile appeals the sufficiency of the evidence for the two counts he was adjudicated delinquent. He also contends the delinquency petition was duplicitous, the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress and his counsel was ineffective. We will not disturb the disposition of the juvenile court absent an abuse of discretion. Maricopa CountyJuv. Action No. JV-128676, 177 Ariz. 352, 353, 868 P.2d 365, 366 (App. 1994). We also view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the findings of the juvenile court. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-8490, 179 Ariz. 102, 106, 876 P.2d 1137, 1141 (1994).
¶9 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the delinquency adjudication, would allow the juvenile court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Juvenile committed the essential elements of the offenses. In re Dayvid S., 199 Ariz. 169, 170, ¶ 4, 15 P.3d 771, 772 (App. 2000). The evidence presented may be direct or circumstantial, and "the probative value of the evidence is not reduced simply because it is circumstantial." State v. Anaya, 165 Ariz. 535, 543, 799 P.2d 876, 884 (App. 1990). Even if the evidence is entirely circumstantial, it can still support reasonable inferences that are sufficient to uphold a conviction. Id. We will reverse only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the adjudication or if the adjudication is clearly contrary to the evidence presented. In re Kyle M., 200 Ariz. 447, 448-49, ¶ 6, 27 P.3d 804, 805-06 (App. 2001).
¶10 Juvenile argues that there was insufficient evidenceto adjudicate him delinquent on the criminal damage charge. He contends that the court erred because it impliedly found him delinquent of criminal damage under an accomplice liability theory. Juvenile also argues that the trial court erred in finding him delinquent of criminal damage to the extent that the court qualified it as a class five felony because the court "did not specify which of the many acts of criminal damage it was relying on for its finding that [Juvenile] committed criminal damage to property valued at an amount that would bring the commission of the offense within the class five felony range."
¶11 In order to prove Juvenile committed the crime of criminal damage, the State had to establish that Juvenile recklessly defaced or damaged property of another person. A.R.S. § 13-1602.A.1 (2010). Recklessness requires that a juvenile be aware of and consciously disregard the risks being created by his conduct. In re William G. , 192 Ariz. 208, 213, 963 P.2d 287, 292 (App. 1997). A juvenile's "mental state must necessarily be ascertained by inference from all relevant surrounding circumstances." Id.
¶12 Juvenile alleges that the juvenile court erred by relying on a theory of accomplice liability to adjudicate him delinquent of criminal damage. However, the juvenile court did not solely rely on a theory of accomplice liability; it statedthat because it found Juvenile had "engaged in causing damage, then it [was] easier to find that he [was] . . . aiding the other juvenile who was also causing damage." Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-303.B.2 (2010), a person is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if "[t]he person aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing such result." See State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 202 Ariz. 212, 220, ¶ 29, 42 P.3d 1177, 1185 (App. 2002). "The mere presence of a person at the time and place of a crime does not make him an aider, abettor, or principal." State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587, 911 P.2d 577, 593 (App. 1995). However, under accomplice liability theory, the "presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one's participation in the criminal intent may be inferred." State v. Villegas, 101 Ariz. 465, 468, 420 P.2d 940, 943 (1966) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶13 Deputy testified that Juvenile admitted that he had been in the Yard. He also stated that Juvenile told him that he had done a little bit of the damage when Deputy was speaking to Mother about the damage caused in the Yard. Both Juvenile and Mother denied that Juvenile made statements to Deputy that he committed any of the damage. However, Juvenile did admit that he had been in the Yard while D.M. was damaging Owner'sproperty. In addition, the juvenile court found that when questioned at trial, Juvenile admitted to turning on the hose and placing it into the truck; whether it was to put out the fire in the truck, as Juvenile claimed, is irrelevant because the hose was left on and caused damage. "The juvenile court is in the best position to assess witness credibility, and our role is to determine if the evidence adduced at the hearing is sufficient to support the court's adjudication." In re James P. , 214 Ariz. 420, 425, ¶ 24, 153 P.3d 1049, 1054 (App. 2007). Accordingly, we will not consider the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence on appeal. Id.
¶14 The testimony of both Deputy and Juvenile supports the juvenile court's order adjudicating Juvenile delinquent for criminal damage. The juvenile court found Deputy to be more credible than Juvenile because Juvenile initially lied to Deputy about being in the Yard. We are not in the position to second-guess that finding.
¶15 Because the juvenile court found that Juvenile committed some of the damage based on his confession to Deputy, it inferred that Juvenile had assisted D.M. in...
To continue reading
Request your trial